Sunday, October 16, 2011

Or should we say, it is perfect, for creatively finding new ways to cram as many fallacies as possible into a single paper is precisely what “scientific” evolutionism seems to be all about. Cusack’s latest peer-reviewed contribution to the evolution literature, Preventing Dangerous Nonsense: Selection for Robustness to Transcriptional Error in Human Genes, is perfectly typical. But alas, due to the strict page limits of Darwin’s God, we are only able to provide a mere brief overview.

Background

When a gene is used to synthesize a protein, error checking and prevention is performed all along the way. An important and dangerous error is the so-called nonsense error in which the code for an amino acid is erroneously replaced with a stop signal. This causes the protein synthesis process to be halted in mid stream, leaving a half-baked and useless segment of protein. Cell’s have various processes to check for and correct such nonsense errors, but another way around the problem is to avoid the genetic coding that is particularly susceptible to nonsense errors.

Anti parsimonious

The main contribution of Cusack’s paper is its elucidation of how these correction and prevention mechanisms often complement each other nicely. In particular, the error correction mechanisms have their limitations. One of the correction mechanisms usually doesn’t work for genes that are written out in one, single continuous region. And for genes that are divided into several separate regions, that mechanism often doesn’t work for the final region.

It is in these particular regions—where the error correction is more limited—that the prevention is stronger. In these regions, the particular genetic coding that is susceptible to nonsense errors is diminished. It would be like having a spell-checker that cannot check a certain page, but that page doesn’t have any long words to begin with.

This and other examples need nothing more than common sense to understand. Looking at the design of the error correction and prevention mechanisms, it makes perfect sense that where the error correction is less effective, there would be more error prevention. Nonetheless, the evolutionists break every rule of parsimony to impose their evolutionary framework. They multiply entities and construct superfluous causes. From Occam to Einstein we know not to do this, but evolutionists must have their theory. Here are two examples from the paper:

Given the high rate of transcriptional errors in eukaryotes, we hypothesized that natural selection has promoted a dual strategy of “prevention and cure” to alleviate the problem of nonsense transcriptional errors. A prediction of this hypothesis is that [the error correction’s] inefficiency should leave a signature of “transcriptional robustness” in human gene sequences that reduces the frequency of nonsense transcriptional errors.

[…]

Interestingly, one group of genes falls entirely outside of the range of [the error correction’s] surveillance. Replication-dependent histones contain neither introns in their coding sequences nor polyA-tail in their mRNAs. Therefore, histone genes represent a blind-spot for both mammalian [the error correction] pathways. According to our hypothesis histone genes should represent the most transcriptionally robust genes in the mammalian genome since PTC-containing transcripts of their genes will not be recognized and degraded before translation.

Evolution adds nothing to the science here. These are yet more examples of how evolution is a gratuitous explanation, adding nothing but “multiplied entities” as Occam put it. We may as well say, with the Aristotelians, that fire is hot because it has the quality of heat.

Teleological

Evolution adds little to the science beyond gratuitous explanation, and furthermore that explanation is awkward. The theory states that the entire biological world just happened to arise all by itself.

Not surprisingly evolutionists never describe it this way. Nor do they use equally accurate but more detailed explanations, such as that blind mutations just happened to create complex, interdependent designs while natural selection killed off the bad designs. Such accurate explanations of the theory are not used because they make obvious the absurdity of the whole project.

Instead evolutionists craft clever explanations that cast evolution and its natural selection in the active role of a designer. The theory sounds so much more plausible when natural selection responds to a need by creating a new design. And so there is an underlying, latent Lamarckianism running through the evolution genre. Out of one side of their mouth they rail against teleology while from the other they appeal to it over and over. Here are typical examples from the paper:

we hypothesized that natural selection has promoted a dual strategy of “prevention and cure” to alleviate the problem of nonsense transcriptional errors.

[…]

Nonsense errors are potentially highly toxic for the cell, so natural selection has evolved a strategy called Nonsense Mediated Decay (NMD) to “cure” such errors.

[…]

Moreover, these “prevention and cure” strategies are used interchangeably …

Natural selection has promoted a dual strategy to alleviate a problem? Strategies are used interchangeably? Of course evolutionists do not mean any of this to be true. Their teleology is rhetorical. They need it to avoid the literal.

Petitio principii

The evolutionists force-fit the evidence into their theory, and the fit isn’t very good. Cusack’s flawed thesis is that evolution predicts how the error correction and prevention methods complement each other. But as usual the project depends on the pre existence of biology’s wonders. In this case, the evolutionists believe that evolution just happened to create the genetic code, which conveniently just happened to have some stop signals.

Evolution also just happened to create genetic information, including stop signs at the appropriate places, and the incredible molecular machines to read, copy and translate that genetic information, and to stop at the stop signs.

But sometimes errors occurred which inserted stop signs somewhere in the middle of a copy of a gene. Fortunately, evolution just happened to create incredible molecular machinery and mechanisms to check for and correct for such errors. The likelihood of all (or any) of this happening is of course beyond ridiculous. The theory isn’t even wrong.

The only way to avoid evolution’s massive contradictions is simply to assume it is true. Having swallowed such lunacy the evolutionists are now in a position to declare that the new evidence is yet another fulfilled prediction of, yes, evolution. Evolution is true, therefore evolution is true.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

A common evolutionary fallacy is to confuse correlation with causation. In this case Cusack and the evolutionists find a good correlation between the correction and prevention mechanisms. Simply put, where the correction is weaker, the prevention is stronger. And so they assume the former is the cause of the latter via the evolutionary process:

We observe that single-exon genes have evolved to become robust to mistranscription, because they show a significant tendency to avoid fragile codons relative to robust codons when compared to multi-exon genes.

[…]

Depletion of fragile codons is due primarily to inactivity of EJC–dependent NMD but also to reduced efficiency of PABP–dependent NMD.

[…]

We show that variable NMD efficiency also leaves its signature in the coding sequences of human genes and in the amino-acid content of the proteins they encode.

When will evolutionists learn that correlation does not imply causation. The answer of course is that they will learn this only when they learn to stop corrupting science with their religious dogma. That may sound harsh, but that is precisely what evolutionists are doing. Their metaphysics mandates evolution to be true. Therefore such correlations must be assumed to be the result of evolutionary causation.

Misrepresentations

No evolutionary treatise would be complete without misrepresentations of the science. If there is any common thread to scientific evolutionism it is the very bizarre interpretations of the scientific evidence which, to put it kindly, amount to misrepresentations. Such misrepresentations run all though the genre, from the popular works on down to the technical papers. Consider these misrepresentations from Cusack’s paper:

In contrast, gene expression errors are not inherited and have tended to be disregarded in evolutionary studies. Here we show how human genes have evolved a mechanism to reduce the occurrence of a specific type of gene expression error—transcriptional errors that create premature STOP codons (so-called “nonsense errors”).

But of course the paper showed no such thing. It did not “show how human genes have evolved a mechanism …” That is an incredibly unlikely, religiously-driven hypothesis that makes little scientific sense. The paper continues:

Nonsense errors are potentially highly toxic for the cell, so natural selection has evolved a strategy called Nonsense Mediated Decay (NMD) to “cure” such errors. However this cure is inefficient. Here we describe how a preventative strategy of “transcriptional robustness” has evolved to decrease the frequency of nonsense errors.

These are yet more blatant misrepresentations of the science. The paper does not “describe how a preventative strategy of ‘transcriptional robustness’ has evolved to decrease the frequency of nonsense errors.” The paper not only did not describe how such a strategy evolved, it did not even show that it evolved.

This and other examples need nothing more than common sense to understand. Looking at the design of the error correction and prevention mechanisms, it makes perfect sense that where the error correction is less effective, there would be more error prevention. Nonetheless, the evolutionists break every rule of parsimony to impose their evolutionary framework.

You mean common sense when viewed from an imposed design framework, don't you? How is that design framework more parsimonious than an evolutionary framework?

When I try to view it from a design framework, I wonder why an error correction mechanism was designed that only works for genes containing introns, and not for genes without introns. Or why design an error correction in the first place, when a more "robust" coding could have prevented the errors from happening? How do you answer those questions from your framework?

Evolutionists are stuck in the mind sucking Darwinian Vortex. It is not about reason and empirical science anymore, but rationalization. It's a strong delusion.

While its useful and unsuspecting minions defend it while fully assured that they are doing "science" a favor, it's really about power and control. That's why early support for Darwin's ideas took off so quickly among the British social elites. Different groups have embraced evolution to attain their agendas of control, domination, and politics. The scripture says, "come and let us reason together". Not rationalize together.

CH: This and other examples need nothing more than common sense to understand. Looking at the design of the error correction and prevention mechanisms, it makes perfect sense that where the error correction is less effective, there would be more error prevention. Nonetheless, the evolutionists break every rule of parsimony to impose their evolutionary framework.

This is an disingenuous attempt to conflate actually providing an explanation for concrete differences between species with being non-parsimonious.

To illustrate this I'll again ask, how was the knowledge of how to correct errors in the genome created?

A designer that was "just there", complete with the knowledge already present to correct sequence errors, serves no explanatory purpose, as one could just as simply state that all organisms "just happened", complete with the knowledge of how to repair sequences, already present in it's DNA.

This is like claiming to have explained the outcome of a magic trick by saying, that's just what the magician must have wanted. Unless you explain the origin of the knowledge of how to perform the trick, you might as well have said this knowledge spontaneously appeared in the magician's mind or claim that it really magic, which cannot be explained.

However, when evolutionary theory provides just such an explanation for the creation of this knowledge, you attempt to present it as non-parsimonious. Of course, this sort of transparent tactic is comes as no surprise.

What you've done is extrapolate observations in a framework that knowledge of how to correct sequence errors has always existed. Therefore, any theory that explains how this knowledge was created, you interpret evolution as non-parsimonious. This is a hidden assumption you share with your target audience, which you do not explicitly present. Furthermore, it's a bad explanation for reasons i've outlined earlier. That's just what the designer must have wanted.

Neal: Scott, suppose for a moment (hypothetically) that you found very compelling evidence for special creation. In your opinion what would such evidence look like?

Your question suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of my position.

Again, I'm pointing out that one cannot extrapolate empirical observations (evidence) without first putting them into an explanatory framework. Nor are all explanatory frameworks equal.

Yet, you've just framed your question as if observations is all one needs. However, In the absence of such a framework, mere evidence is cannot help us reach any conclusion. You've left out a critical part of the equation, which apparently you do not recognize as being remotely necessary or a key part of the process.

It's unclear how we can have a reasonable discussion on the subject without first addressing this significant disconnect. You're not even wrong. We're not even comparing apples and oranges.

In other words, before I could find "special creation" compelling, I'd require you to provide a good explanation for our observations of the biosphere as a prerequisite. Furthermore, by nature of your own definition, "special creation" isn't a good explanation for reasons I've outlined elsewhere.

Again, a designer that was "just there", complete with the knowledge already present to correct sequence errors, serves no explanatory purpose, as one could just as simply state that all organisms "just happened", complete with the knowledge of how to repair sequences, already present in it's DNA.

So, "special creation" would need to explain how this knowledge was created. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of pushing food around on one's plate and claiming to have ate it. As such, it would fails as an explanation of the concrete biological complexity of the biosphere.

Of course, you're probably trying to solve a different question, such as how one can reconcile God's existence given what we observe and your particular theology. At which point I'd again suggest it's unclear how we can have a reasonable discussion since we're asking different questions.

However, It's unlikely we'll make any headway as this would require to to concede that other approaches or context are even possible, which would be antithetical to your theological agenda.

Neal Tedford: Scott, suppose for a moment (hypothetically) that you found very compelling evidence for special creation. In your opinion what would such evidence look like?

As Scott said, saying "special creation" is much too vague as to constitute a valid hypothesis, unless it entails some traditional claim, such as found in the Bible. Similarly, saying "evolution" is only meaningful because we know it refers to the framework we know as the Theory of Evolution.

Scott, just for clarification... are you asking that creation models supply details as to how biological complexity originated? Can you give a hypothetical example of the detail you are looking for?

Zachriel, can you provide the detailed explanation and framework for abiogenesis? According to previous posts on this subject your answers fall short of getting off the ground. With such poverty of explanation, your framework is pure fantasy yet you still think you have a valid hypothesis? Because Richard Dawkins (the atheist who chickened out of the Oxford debate this month) said so is not meaningful.

Neal: Scott, suppose for a moment (hypothetically) that you found very compelling evidence for special creation. In your opinion what would such evidence look like?

The evidence that collaborates Newton's laws of motion has been falling on every square meter of the earth for billions of years. It was falling for the tens of thousands of years that hominids existed with brains of essentially the same size and structure as we have today.

As such, Newton didn't bring evidence to the table, he brought an explanation for what we had been observing for tens of thousands of years. It's not evidence that is scarce, as we have plenty. Rather, what's scarce are good explanations for what we observe, which tell us what specific evidenced we should look at.

In other words, you're question indicates a presupposition that theories are formed by generalize observations. But I'm suggesting this is a myth and you've got it backwards.

It's unclear how we can have a reasonable discussion without first resolving what appears to be an approach to science that is in direct opposition. Yet, you seem unwilling to even acknowledge such opposition exists, let alone discussing it.

Scott said, "In other words, you're question indicates a presupposition that theories are formed by generalize observations. But I'm suggesting this is a myth and you've got it backwards. "

Normally, observations lead to theories as scientists attempt to best explain the available observations. Better tools and technology can lead to better observations. In the process theories are refined, disgarded and/or replaced. For example, the steady state theory, so beloved by atheists was disgarded because better observations of the cosmos were given by larger telescopes.

Microscopes are doing to biology what telescopes did for cosmology. The evolutionary framework falls far short of explaining what the microscope is revealing.

Of course evolutionists are comfortable with rationalizing their theory with whatever the observations are. What you describe is rationalism. Your preconceived agenda determines the outcome. Thanks for illustrating rationalism. Come let us reason together.

Scott: As such, Newton didn't bring evidence to the table, he brought an explanation for what we had been observing for tens of thousands of years. It's not evidence that is scarce, as we have plenty.

That, and also a number of novel predictions. An obvious example is Halley's Comet.

Neal Tedford: Zachriel, can you provide the detailed explanation and framework for abiogenesis?

At this point, there is no complete theory, and there are a number of competing explanations. However, a number of advances have been made, such as the discovery of autocatalyzing RNA, and the spontaneous assembly of lipid membranes.

Neal: Scott, just for clarification... are you asking that creation models supply details as to how biological complexity originated?

Here's an analogy. How do we explain the differences between different models of cars over time?We explain these differences, in part, via having created the of knowledge of how to build cars.

We design cars that reflect our limitations, which are in turn determined what knowledge we have created, or lack there of.

The earliest cars were are slower, nosier less fuel efficient, less comfortable, etc because we had yet to create the knowledge of how to build faster, quieter, more efficient and more comfortable cars.

We do not merely say that today's cars are significantly faster, quieter, more efficient and more comfortable than the earliest cars merely because "That's what the car designer must have wanted", Right?

If manufacturers could build a significantly safer car at the same price, they would as customers value safety. It's not that they lack the knowledge of how to make safer cars, but we have yet to create the knowledge of how to do so cost effectively and with the same fuel efficiency, performance, etc. And when we do create this knowledge, we'll see cars that are significantly safer than cars on the road today.

Certainly, there are aspects of differentiation that represent choice by designers, but we've already addressed this in respect to a hierarchy of iPods.

Electric vehicles have limited ranges because we have yet to create the knowledge of how to build more efficient batteries to store electricity. Surely designers want wider ranges, but we can explain the ranges of today's cars based on the knowledge we have an have yet to create. Designers can choose between cost, range and performance, but this choice will ultimately reflects a trade off that can be explained via the knowledge we have created to date.

Designing cars is not magic. We've wanted cars that drive themselves for decades, yet we're only now seeing these features appear. Why? We explain this by only recently having created the knowledge necessarily to do so and embedding that knowledge into each car.

And, ultimately, we explain the creation of knowledge via creating theories by conjecture, testing those theories via observations and discarding those with errors.

In the absence of such explanations, one could more simply state that the knowledge of how to build cars "just appeared" in the minds of assembly workers when they showed up for work and in the software of industrial robots when they were turned on.

So, again, what I'm looking for is an expiation as to how the knowledge of how to build each species was created. Otherwise, you've failed to explain the concrete difference between each species, which is the question that evolutionary theory addresses. The end result is that you've merely pushed the problem into some unexplainable mind that exists in some unexplainable realm.

Neal: Can you give a hypothetical example of the detail you are looking for?

Note that I did not give details as to exactly which step occurred in exactly which order.

We can explain a device that gives a result of 4 when we input 2 + 2 via mathematics without delving into the details of wither the device is mechanical, vacuum tubes or a super computer. Surely, it's possible that a supernatural being is behind the result, but why would we expect supernatural beings to generate results *as if* mathematics was taking place? How would you explain this particular result, rather than some other result? Why couldn't we say the same about the reactions of drugs, gravity, electricity, etc.?

Scott, how advanced cars are really has nothing to do with the fact that they are designed.

Life is incredibly complex and scientists are just scratching the surface in explaining how living cells and complex organisms function.

But the more we learn, the more unsatisfactory the simplistic explanations of mutation and natural selection are.

The more we learn about how to modify the DNA of bacteria the more we find that it requires great precision and advanced technology and intelligence to tweek even the most basic of life. They have a long way to go. What we do know from modifying DNA is that it takes intelligent goal oriented plans and great precision. So while our understanding of the cell is inadequate in explaining how a designer/creator may have done it, what we do know is that just tweeking a living cell requires intelligence. If someday, man is able to create from scratch (not borrowing from existing life) a basic living cell (which is probably beyond human ability), the instruction manuals for doing so will be staggering complex and lengthy. It will be make the design and manufacture of a complex computer chip look like a preschool art project. It certainly won't be along the lines of the brute stupid Urey-Miller experiment as we see how complex it is to just tweek a living cell.

Two thick horizontal bars in the middle of diagram mean "AND" , also third codon-anticodon position is not included. Scientists don't say much about it except "it is much less stringently monitored" (wobble hypothesis).

Neal, you're operating on the assumption that since man has to use "great precision and advanced technology and intelligence to tweek even the most basic of life", that an intelligent entity (your chosen god of course) is the only possible explanation for the existence and diversity of life.

To me that says more about the current (and maybe future) limitations of man than it does about the processes of nature. In other words, just because we can't do something, it doesn't mean that nature can't, and especially when nature has billions of years to do it.

The whole truth said, "it doesn't mean that nature can't, and especially when nature has billions of years to do it."

--

Evolutionists retreat to the wooly headed idea that eons of time can resolve any open problems regarding the sufficiency of natural processes to do what they say it can. For evolutionists, time becomes a magical black box wherein anything could happen.

That's like a government thinking that financial problems can be solved by just printing more money. Simplistic and seriously deficient explanations are not limited to evolutionary scientists.

Furthermore, evolutionists have a serious internal contradiction going on here. On the one hand they say billions of years can do it, but by their own estimates of when first life started they don't have billions of years!

First life shows up early in the fossil record when the earth was still young and becoming hospitable. Furthermore, research shows that a free living cell needs a minimum of several hundred genes to function. So, you can even use eons of time to work its assumed magic. Your argument is flawed in every respect.

Zachriel said, "Well, we know that's not the case. Random mutations can "tweak even the most basic of life." A simple example is Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment."

--Okay. "Tweak" was a poor choice of words for me to use to describe what I had in mind, specifically the work of the Ventor group in synthesizing large portions of DNA from bacteria.

Yes, it is true that mutations can indeed tweak DNA, particularly in bacteria that appear to be engineered for it. But, that appears to be the extent of what mutations have been observed to actually do.

All that we ever observe are some changes that are bounded. I'm convinced that in 10 million or 100 million generations of E Coli, it will still be recognized as E Coli with some variations and mutations. The only way you get macro change is by intensive and planned intelligent intervention. There is nothing in biology from the empirical evidence that contradictions this point. As we begin to understand what it takes to assemble a bacteria from scratch and the intelligence involved in doing so, the hokus pokus Darwinian stuff will become irrelevant.

The framework for assembling DNA from scratch will not be evolution but intelligent design. One gets this idea that most evolutionists tend to think life can be created like pancakes, add a little water to flour at the right temperature and poof. That's an exaggeration, but sums up the mentality pretty good. I'm saying that the assembly instructions would challenge in complexity even the most advanced hardware systems design.

Zachriel said, "Well, no. There are ample examples in the fossil record where gradual, selectable changes lead to new features. Examples: bipedalism in apes, mammalian middle ear, aquatic to terrestrial vertebrates."

--

This is just one interpretation of the fossil record based on evolution being an assumed fact. The fossil record does not support gradualism. Do you need references or would you care to google your own? Was punctated equilibrium coined by evolutionists due to the immense number of gradual transitions found in the fossil record. Of course not. This kind of denial of the findings is what makes discussion with evolutionists difficult. There is always this squishy, weasel word fuzziness about everything. It's like nailing jello to the wall.

The bottom line is that we should have observed huge macro change in bacteria given the large population sizes and rapid reproduction rates. We should observe many examples of unbounded directional change. But we haven't. All you can do is cherry pick your interpretation of the fossil record and ignore problems with the fossil record. It's just a bunch of hukus pokus.

Neal: What we do know from modifying DNA is that it takes intelligent goal oriented plans and great precision.

This is yet another example of how one cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework.

First, we are intelligent agents. Therefore, before we could choose to change DNA in any specific way we have to set a goal as to what change should occur. Right? What else would you expect us to do? What is the alternative? It's not clear that intelligent, goal oriented processes are necessary just because it's necessary step for taking any action as human beings. Apparently you cannot take yourself out of the equation.

That's like saying flight is *necessary* for long-distance travel because planes can only travel long-distances by flight and every time you've experienced long-distance travel you took a plane. It's fallacious reasoning. Cars do not exhibit flight, yet they can still travel long-distances. So, while it is necessary for planes, in particular, it's not necessary for long-distance travel, per se.

Human beings cannot choose anything in particular with out intelligently creating goals. We cannot do otherwise. But this doesn't mean the absence of this feature in natural process would exclude them.

Second, You're assuming that what we observe is a specific goal. Therefore, a specific sort of precision and statistical probability would be necessary to obtain it in particular. But this isn't what evolutionary theory suggests. We do not assume that human being have five fingers because that's just what some deigned must have wanted. We assume the knowledge of how to build human beings with five fingers was created thought the iterative process of genetic variation and natural selection. Therefore, the sort of precision you're remaining isn't necessary.

I wrote: That's like saying flight is *necessary* for long-distance travel because planes can only travel long-distances by flight and every time you've experienced long-distance travel you took a plane. It's fallacious reasoning.

What do I mean by this?

Imagine you're a child of a very wealthy family. Any time you've traveled long-distances you've always flown. Trips to your grandmother? Flown. Trips to Paris? Flown. Move to a new city? Flown. Disney world? Flown. Short-distance travel is always by limo and never lasts for more than an hour.

Since your parents are wealthily, long-distance travel has always been accompanied by the experience of flight. However, concluding that long-distance travel was only possible by air because you had never experienced otherwise would be fallacious reasoning, right?

In the case of human beings, any actions we take must will be accompanied by the experience of some degree of intelligence and planning, it's simply impossible to do otherwise. However, concluding that intelligence and planning is necessary for biological complexity because you had never experienced otherwise would also be fallacious reasoning, right?

Neal; Scott, no its like saying that flight is necessary to go to the moon. By comparison, evolutionists insist that one can walk to the moon.

Neal, by definition analogy are always imperfect. You're referring to the wrong part of the analogy.

To illustrate this, if one had only experienced swans that were white when observing swans, it would be fallacious reasoning to assume that all swans were white. Right? This is the part of the analogy I'm referring to.

We do not assume that cars cannot travel to the moon because we haven't observed it in the past. Rather we lack and explanation as to how a car could possibility travel to the moon. This is because our explanation as to how a car travels any distance is though friction between it's turning drive wheels and some sort of surface plane over which it travels.

There is no such plane between the earth and the moon.

However, our explanation for how cars travel could be incorrect.

For example, it could be that some intelligent being just so happens to have always chosen to propels cars forward via some supernatural force, just when the drive wheels are rotating and in contact with a surface plane. If so, then the need for friction is just a coincidence. This same being could change their mind tomorrow and choose to propel cars to the moon in absence of such a surface plane. Just because we would have effectively observed them always choosing to propel the car when friction is present in the past, this doesn't mean they would necessarily continue to do so in the future.

This is the problem of induction.

Despite the fact that it's logically possible that such a supernatural being could do this, we lack an explanation as to why such a being would make it appear *as if* friction between drive wheels and a surface plane is necessary, but it's not. As such, we discard it a priori, without testing.

So, again, we do not assume that cars cannot travel to the moon merely because we have never observed them doing so in the past. Rather we lack an explanation as to how they could, based on our current explanation of how cars travel and the lack of a surface place between the earth and the moon.

I wrote: For example, it could be that some intelligent being just so [happen] to have always chosen to propels cars forward via some supernatural force, just when the drive wheels are rotating and in contact with a surface plane. If so, then the need for friction is just a coincidence.

Or to quote CH: When will evolutionists learn that correlation does not imply causation.

Of course, this goes for all observations as it's impossible to extrapolate any observation without first putting it into an explanatory framework.

All observations are theory laden.

How Cornelius manages to avoid doing this is a mystery he has yet to disclose. Until then, to single out evolution is irrational.

Scott said, "However, our explanation for how cars travel could be incorrect.

For example, it could be that some intelligent being just so happens to have always chosen to propels cars forward via some supernatural force, just when the drive wheels are rotating and in contact with a surface plane..."

Are you suggesting it would be impossible for God it make it appear *as if* friction was necessary should he choose to do so? As such assuming he would is bizarre?

Or are you suggesting that we have no explanation as to why God would make it appear *as if* friction was necessary. Therefore assuming he would is bizarre?

I don't think it's impossible that God could have designed the biosphere. Rather, we have no explanation as to why God would create specific concrete differences between species to appear *as if* they had evolved. As such, we discard it.

On the other hand, evolution does provide an just such an explanation.

Scott said, "Rather, we have no explanation as to why God would create specific concrete differences between species to appear *as if* they had evolved. "

--Okay. Back to the mind sucking Darwinian vortex.

It only appears *as if* species have evolved when one's mind is in the vortex. Evolutionists have established their model and whatever is found is accommodated or excused. Cherry picking evidence and interpreting speculative data according to the evolutionary agenda is what its all above.

The fact that we have never observed macro change is problematic. The fossil record does not support gradualism, but saltation events. Perhaps if you defined big picture evolution as saltation events that only occured in the distant past but never in recorded history it would match the findings.

Was God surprised that the majority of scientists accept evolution due to the concrete difference between species? After all, you're suggesting that God exercised intelligence and specifically chose the concrete differences we observe between species, right? And, Cornelius claims that God always know exactly what he was creating.

Unless God was completely blindsided by this result, he would have known the choices he supposedly made would have resulted in it appearing *as if* evolution was true, but was false. As such, a this would make a theory explaining the concrete differences between species impossible.

Why would God do this?

This is like claiming God created atoms in such a way that makes atomic theory impossible or God created the universe was created in such a way that makes gravitational theory impossible.

If it's possible that God could do this in the case of the biosphere, why couldn't he also make it appear *as if* friction was necessary to propel cars, but really wasn't? Why wouldn't this be the case with gravity, chemistry, etc?

Why isn't the entirety of science suspect, rather than just evolution? Because evolution conflicts with your chosen holy book?

This suggests that your "solve" the problem of induction via the belief that divine revelation reveals Truth with a capital "T", and therefore supersedes good explanations for observations.

However, you haven't explained how you differentiate between false divine revelation and true divine revelation without again falling prey to the problem of indiction.

Neal: It only appears *as if* species have evolved when one's mind is in the vortex.

Neal,

One could just as well claim it only appears *as if* cars require friction to propel themselves when in a mind sucking "frictional vortex." Without any sort of comprehensive and coherent criteria, you're merely appealing to possibilities. This is just more typical hand waving.

Again, are you suggesting that God didn't have a clue that the particular way he created the biosphere could be construed as evolving but knew we'd reach the reach our current conclusion in regards to the necessity of friction to propel cars? It's as if you think the origin of the biosphere represents some sort of test, which God set up for us to pass or fail. But why couldn't gravity, chemistry or friction be a test as well? Again, because it conflicts with your holy book?

Furthermore, you did not explain why you think my analogy is bizarre. To repeat…

Are you suggesting it would be impossible for God it make it appear *as if* friction was necessary should he choose to do so? As such assuming he would is bizarre?

Or are you suggesting that we have no explanation as to why God would make it appear *as if* friction was necessary. Therefore assuming he would is bizarre?

Neal Tedford: The fossil record does not support gradualism, but saltation events.

Um, no it doesn't. Consider the broad sweep of evolutionary history, from single-celled organisms to simple colonial to segmentation to chordates to vertebrates to fish to amphibians to reptiles to dinosaurs to birds. If we then look more closely at the transitions, such as dinosaurs to birds, we have saurischians to theropods to coelurosaur to maniraptors to birds. And among any of these groups, we can find additional phylogenetic detail. Genetics confirms the diversification of modern birds.http://allbirdsoftheworld.wikia.com/wiki/File:Neoaves_Cladogram.svg

Here's a phylogeny of dinosaurs to give you some idea of incremental changes involved in the diversification of that clade:http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/Cladogram/CladogramComplete.jpg

Scott, let me try this again. Someone suffering from schizophrenia may hear voices *as if* they were really spoken by another person.

While I'm not equating evolutionary thinking as a mental illness, I am equating what they preceive as evidence for their model/framework with these schizophrenic *as if* voices. Darwinism is philosophical velrco to the mind of an individual whose mind is closed. Like a black hole, the closer you get into it, the harder it is to escape. My background in information technology completely revolts against the hokus pokus of Darwinism. Systems that operate in the real world just don't get hand waving free lunches.

Neal: Scott, let me try this again. Someone suffering from schizophrenia may hear voices *as if* they were really spoken by another person.

Neal,

The problem with analogy is that this only appears *as if* someone is speaking to the schizophrenic alone, not anyone else. Why have you ignored this fact?

Furthermore, do we explain schizophrenia by assuming some supernatural being has chosen to speak to just these people alone? Perhaps they are possessed by demons? Perhaps there are aliens with advanced technology that allows them to speak to those who we've diagnosed as schizophrenics?

What we lack is an expiation as to how or why aliens or supernatural beings could and would single out these particular people. As such, we discard them.

However, we've observed people hallucinating in a number of other scenarios, including lack of sleep, under the influence of specific drugs, etc. We have conversations which people that are not actually present when we dream. As such, we explain schizophrenic hallucinations via differences in chemistry and other neural abnormalities in the brain.

Neal: While I'm not equating evolutionary thinking as a mental illness, I am equating what they perceive as evidence for their model/framework with these schizophrenic *as if* voices.

Which leads me back to my previous comment. What is your explanation for this supposed false conclusion given your supposed claims?

Specifically, you're the one claiming God exercised intelligence and specifically chose the concrete differences we observe between species. Are you suggesting that God had no idea that the specific way he chose to create the biosphere would result in an overwhelming majority of scientists accepting evolutionary theory? Did he have no choice as to create things in a way that can be explained by evolutionary theory? Your refusal to acknowledge specific patterns in biological complexity we observe does not mean they do not exist.

What's your explanation as to how we could have possibility arrived here, given your claims? If these patterns do not mean what we think they men, then how do you explain them?

Neal: My background in information technology completely revolts against the hokus pokus of Darwinism. Systems that operate in the real world just don't get hand waving free lunches.

And what background might that be Neal? Are you actively involved in solving IT problems on a daily basis? If not, why?

I've been an independent technology consultant for 6 years. Before that, I worked at several new media design agencies building data centers, web hosing systems and multimedia CD ROM presentations. Before that, I managed multiple call center networks and diagnosed / repaired various desktop computer systems, including mini-computers at a number of hospitals.

Why doesn't my background in information technology revolt agains evolutionary processes as an expiation for the creation of knowledge we observe in the genome?

We explain the advance of Information technology in that we created the knowledge of how to built it over time. In the absence of such an explanation, one could more simply state that computers "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to process information, already present when they rolled off the assembly line.

Unless you explain how the knowledge found in the genome was created, one could more simply state that each organism "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of build each species, already present in its DNA.

So, I'd again ask, how do you explain our relatively recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge? Or do you even believe hat knowledge is created at all. I simply cannot make heads or tales out of what your position is or if you even have one in the first place.

Rather, it seems that you're merely slinging mud at a scientific theory that you personally object to in hope that anything will stick.

Scott, I've been working in IT for over 25 years. As CH points out repeatedly, EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN the grand claims of evolutionists GOO TO YOU assumption of FACT. It is half baked... and that is being generous.

Computers are designed and manufactured by people. Life shows many of the same properties of design and natural processes have never been observed to create life from lifeless chemical processes.

You're being a bit hypocritical about having to show how biological complexity arose. The mechanisms of evolution fall far short of an explanation. The complexity of the living cell is greater than any human computer ever made. It screams design. It would be different if evolutionists had strong empirical evidence for their claims, but it is mostly just a bit of cherry picked evidence and empty rhetoric. It hides behind a facade of science like the Wizard of Oz.

Note that punctuated equilibrium is based on evolutionary gradualism, but not phyletic gradualism, and is consistent with Darwin's theory.

Darwin: "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."

Yet you seem unable or unwilling to see the distinctions in my analogies, despite having pointed them out to you multiple times. Exactly what sort of IT work did you do? Are you still doing it today?

I'll again attempt to point out the distinction between our arguments.

Neal: Computers are designed and manufactured by people. Life shows many of the same properties of design and natural processes have never been observed to create life from lifeless chemical processes.

To summarize: Every computer you've observed is complex and was designed by intelligent agents. LIfe exhibits complexity. Therefore, life was designed by intelligent agents.

First, we do not think the first cell exhibited the level of complexity as modern day prokaryotic cells. Second, this is an argument from induction. Just because you personally have not observed complexity created by natural process, this doesn't mean that evolutionary processes cannot create complexity. Induction simply isn't adequate for justifying conclusions. That we do so is a myth.

On the other hand, I'm not arguing from induction. I'm referring to your computer analogy to point out that not only is it inductive in nature, but that you're failed to note that …

- We do not see modern day computers with billions of transistors appear at the same time as geared computers. Computational ability grows over time as we create the knowledge of how to build smaller and faster computers. No one one person "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build computers, already present.

- Surely designers wanted faster computers, but there choices were limited by what knowledge we had created at the time. We can explain trade offs between cost, performance, quantity and build speed in terms of the knowledge they had created to date.

- Computers that roll off the assembly line contain this knowledge embedded in their hardware and software. (just as organisms contain the knowledge of how to build each species in their DNA)

However, when I ask for you explanation of how we creation knowledge, you simply do not reply. it's unclear if you simply haven't thought about it, you think it's "magic" which cannot be explained, or you think that knowledge isn't created in the first place.

Did this information appear spontaneously in the minds of human designers? In the absence of such an explanation, one could more simply state that computers "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to process information, already present when they rolled off the assembly line.

However, we have explanations for how we, as human beings, created this knowledge. We create theories via conjecture, test those theories via observations and discard those with errors. Creating the knowledge of how to build computers isn't magic. It's not some great mystery that cannot be explained.

Neal: As CH points out repeatedly, EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN the grand claims of evolutionists GOO TO YOU assumption of FACT.

First, to be accurate, evolution isn't abiogenesis. Second, I've repeatedly given explanations as to how evolutionary progresses create the knowledge found in the genome. it's a variation of the same explanation of how we created the knowledge of how to build computers.

Given that you're refused to disclose you're explanation for the creation of knowledge, it's not even clear that you have one.

Have you concluded that human beings are the only possible source of knowledge creation since every time you've observed knowledge being created, it was by a human being? But this is yet another inductive argument. Or perhaps you think knowledge cannot be created in the first place?

Evolution falls under a greater umbrella which explains knowledge creation in general. In science, we use conjecture to create theories, test them via observations and discard those with errors. Evolution creates what amounts to "theories" of how to replicate individual genes in a specific environment via genetic variation and tests those "theories" by discarding those with errors via natural selection.

Of course this analogy is imperfect, otherwise it wouldn't' be an analogy, would it? The key difference is that people can create explanations. Evolution cannot. People can discard a near infinite number of mere possibilities that lack explanations, a priori. However, since it lacks the concept of an explanation, evolution must test every variation.

Regardless of these differences, both processes still fall under the same explanation of knowledge creation. Neither is "magic."